IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Spectators Versus Stakeholders with/without Information: the Difference it Makes for Justice

We document that being spectators (no effect on personal payoffs) and, to a lesser extent, stakeholders without information on relative payoffs, induces subjects who can choose distribution criteria after task performance to prefer rewarding talent (vis à vis effort, chance or strict egalitarianism) after guaranteeing a minimal egalitarian base. Information about distribution of payoffs under different criteria reduces dramatically such choice since most players opt or revise their decision in favor of the criterion which maximizes their own payoff (and, by doing so, end up being farther from the maximin choice). Large part (but not all) of the stakeholders’ choices before knowing the payoff distribution are driven by their performance beliefs since two thirds of them choose the criterion in which they assume to perform and earn relatively better.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: Main text
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Tor Vergata University, CEIS in its series CEIS Research Paper with number 221.

in new window

Length: 44 pages
Date of creation: 20 Feb 2012
Date of revision: 20 Feb 2012
Handle: RePEc:rtv:ceisrp:221
Contact details of provider: Postal: CEIS - Centre for Economic and International Studies - Faculty of Economics - University of Rome "Tor Vergata" - Via Columbia, 2 00133 Roma
Phone: +390672595601
Fax: +39062020687
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Postal: CEIS - Centre for Economic and International Studies - Faculty of Economics - University of Rome "Tor Vergata" - Via Columbia, 2 00133 Roma
Web: Email:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Ruben Durante & Louis Putterman, 2009. "Preferences for Redistribution and Perception of Fairness: An Experimental Study," Working Papers hal-01073750, HAL.
  2. Magnus Johannesson & Ulf-G Gerdtham, 1995. "A pilot test of using the veil of ignorance approach to estimate a social welfare function for income," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(10), pages 400-402.
  3. repec:kap:expeco:v:1:y:1998:i:1:p:43-62 is not listed on IDEAS
  4. Konow, James, 1996. "A positive theory of economic fairness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 13-35, October.
  5. Selten, Reinhard, 1996. "Axiomatic Characterization of the Quadratic Scoring Rule," Discussion Paper Serie B 390, University of Bonn, Germany.
  6. Theo Offerman & Joep Sonnemans & Gijs Van De Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2009. "A Truth Serum for Non-Bayesians: Correcting Proper Scoring Rules for Risk Attitudes ," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 76(4), pages 1461-1489.
  7. repec:oup:qjecon:v:111:y:1996:i:1:p:1-19 is not listed on IDEAS
  8. Carlsson , Fredrik & Gupta, Gautam & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2002. "Choosing from Behind a Veil of Ignorance in India," Working Papers in Economics 72, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  9. Binmore, Ken, 2005. "Natural Justice," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195178111, July.
  10. Lucy F. Ackert & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Mark Rider, 2004. "Tax Policy Design in The Presence of Social Preferences: Some Experimental Evidence," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper0425, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
  11. Ruffle, Bradley J., 1998. "More Is Better, But Fair Is Fair: Tipping in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 247-265, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rtv:ceisrp:221. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Barbara Piazzi)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.